Slashdot Mirror
Australian Extradited For Breaking US Law At Home
An anonymous reader sends us a link to a report in The Age about an Australian resident, who had never set foot in the US and broke US intellectual-property laws in Australia, being extradited to the US to face trial. Hew Raymond Griffiths pleaded guilty in Virginia to overseeing all aspects of the operation of the group Drink Or Die, which cracked copy-protected software and media products and distributed them for free. He faces up to 10 years in a US jail and half a million dollars in fines.
Perhaps the fact that he isn't under US jurisdiction?
That's not the drum of revolution, it's the contented monotony of suburban life.
Well the US is not the World Police. He also broke Australian law, and the crime was committed on Australian soil, so should have been charged and tried there. A sovereign country's citizens should be tried under that country's law, unless the US fancies an international court to handle international crimes.
Most countries have extradition treaties, meaning they've specifically agreed to send citizens to foreign countries to face prosecution if a formal request is made. You actually want it this way. Wouldn't be much fun if criminals could commit crimes with impunity just because they weren't physically in a country. Now I'm not saying software piracy should be one of those crimes, but let's be real here. What if there was an organized crime boss, living in the US, ordering the deaths of Australian citizens? Would you want the US to extradite him to face justice or would you want them to say "Well he wasn't committing any crimes here, and since he's not in Australia you can't have him, sorry."
Since we don't want criminals using national borders to shield themselves, a large number of nations have extradition treaties with each other. There are restrictions on those treaties, for example Canada can refuse to extradite in cases where the person would face the death penalty, but in general if it is a legit request, the extradition is honoured.
Assuming you're American, would you want to be extradited to Australia for breaking an Australian law in the US even though you'd never been to Australia?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Now, the guy violated copyright law - Australian copyright law, as mentioned in TFA, However, since the unlawful act was carried out in Australia, I have no idea why he can't be sentenced there. The US argument is presumably that the copyright owners are in the US, but so what? If I injure a German person while he visits France, should I be extradited to Germany from France? This whole issue just seems bizarre.
Why is this news?
Perhaps the fact that he isn't under US jurisdiction?
He most certainly is under US jurisdiction. We own the Australian government, which means we own Australia, which means we own your ass. Break our laws and we'll slam you in our prisons, because we can, and it makes us money to do so.
Welcome to the new world order, Bush (Sr., Jr.) and Clinton style.
Until Australia (and, for that matter, the UK) learns to stand up to the world's biggest bully (what to my immense shame is what my country, the United States, has become), they and their people will be under our jurisdiction, subject to our laws on their own soil, and with no protection from their own governments. Just like the soviet satellite states of the last century, we'll let you wave your own flags and call yourselves whatever you like, but fuck with us and our cash flow, and we'll slam you into our gulag.
You want this to not be the case? Then elect and demand a government with some backbone that will tell the United States exactly where it can get off.
... the war on terror made this extradition a lot easier?
Why, yes! I AM new here.
A sovereign country's citizens should be tried under that country's law, unless the US fancies an international court to handle international crimes.
They do.
Just so long as it doesn't involve US citizens. Or military personnel.
Typically, countries will assert jurisdiction over acts committed within their geographic territory or acts committed by their own citizens wherever they may be. Sometimes a country will assert that a foreign national--though not actually setting foot in the country--has reached out to its jurisdiction by some act, thus invoking "the long arm of the law." Examples would include sending a mail bomb, or breaking into a computer over the internet.
This case does not appear to be based on any of those theories of jurisdiction. According to the article, the US charged Mr. Griffiths with conspiracy. Under conspiracy, any one conspirator is liable for the acts of any other person in the conspiracy.
This is very troublesome when applied to such a mundane crime as copying works and giving them to people who never would have bought them in the first place. The actual effect of the conspiracy is arguably insignificant. It doesn't seem as troublesome when applied to something who planned the 9/11 attacks, where the effect is very significant. But the theory of jurisdiction is the same: conspiracy with people who committed criminal acts inside the prosecuting country.
Thankfully we still have some sanity here in NZ. Although there was perhaps some keenness to hitch up withAustralia in the 1980s and 1990s, less kiwis think thta way now.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
If an American currently in Australia is mugged then that crime is comitted in Australia. The fact that American interests (people) were affected does not mean that the offence was comitted in the USA.
The global nature of the Internet does make the location of some crimes ambiguous but that doesn't make it right to just go ahead and pick a jurisdiction.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Uh, yes, actually, it's called "sovereignty" and other countries get to have it too! Sucks for us, don't it?
If you want to stop "harm to American interests" then the appropriate method of doing it is to deal with the UN and international law, not to bully other countries into following our national ones.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Oh, by the way, I'm sure you and just about every other American has done enough things that are illegal in some country that we'd be locked up for life, or worse, if we were extradited there. Have sex outside of marriage, or in some "deviant" (i.e., anything other than missionary) position? I'll bet that's a capital offense in some religion-infested place. Spit on the sidewalk? That'll land you in prison in Indonesia. Drive on the right side of the road? Ooh, that's a severe violation in England and Japan! Remember, it doesn't matter that you were driving down Route 66 at the time...
Now, think of the madness that would ensue if everyone were as stupid and shortsighted as you are. Aren't you glad you're not in charge?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Hrngh. No.
The guy has been accused of violating copyright law by certain people in the US. He has not been convicted. The question of his guilt has not even been examined by a court. He has been extradited not for violating copyright law, but for being accused of violating copyright law.
If somebody in the US accused you of violating copyright law, you can be extradited too. It does not matter whether you did it. The US extradition treaties do not operate on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", they operate on the principle of "everybody is guilty" - proof is not required, requested, or considered. A bureaucrat signs a form and you get shipped into a US jail. (At their option, this can be a US jail that isn't located on US soil, like Gitmo, so they aren't obliged to ever examine whether you are guilty of anything)
Yeah,
Well as a UK Citizen, we signed an agreement that allowed USUK extradition.
However, the US hasn't, and won't sign their half !!!
In contract-law speak, this is called being 'screwed over'.
Blair (et al.) doesn't have the balls to revoke our ratification, despite the fact that several high-profile extradition cases have gone to the high court, and several high profile US->UK cases are just piling up, e.g. US servicemen causing in a large proportion of UK military deaths and casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan.
To quote one US airman, who had just strafed and killed solders in a UK convoy - "Man, we're going to jail.". But luckily, US laws only apply when/where they say it does.
Before you hit the flamebait button, please listen: The issue here is more widespread than you think. In this case they were stealing software, breaking the anti-piracy measures and redistributing it. What about hacking a computer in another country, stealing credit cards and selling the cards or charging them? What about training radicals to hop onto planes and commit crimes in other countries? What about private groups of citizens launching rockets across the border into neighboring countries? In what jurisdiction does the crime occur? What if the other government refuses to prosecute? Should it escalate to a national or international conflict?
The fundamental questions is, what do you do when someone from another country harms your citizens or destroys their property? Criminals used run for the state or country border to avoid prosecution. No they just play in the fuzzy areas of national sovereignty. Many of the conflicts in the world follow this pattern. In this case Australia decided to hand the criminal over the the US for prosecution. Maybe they are trying to send a message to criminals hiding behind these gray areas of sovereignty.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Religion-infested place? You mean unlike America?
Someone needs to ask for the extradition of your president and our prime minister for crimes against humanity - starting illegal wars, killing 10,000s of civilian non-combatants, detention without trial and lots more bad things.
Obviously they are not illegal in the USA or the UK because they say so, but there are lots of places where this sort of behaviour is against the rules. If such extraditions are not a good thing, perhaps someone should say why mass murder is less important than intellectual "property".
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Remember that "The USA" is not really equivalent to the US nation and its people. The foreign and domestic politics of "The USA" are designed to maximize the wealth of a few dozen families that controls Congress and most big business in the US. At the expense of millions of Americans that has to do with living on minimum wage. The USA as the World Police is a construction created to serve these families interests, not the American people. The American people are just as much the victim of it as everyone else.
Football Odds
Unfortunately, a few too many Australians. 40% of them voted for him directly, and another 6% for the national party with which they have a formal alliance. Due to the allocation of preferences this allowed them to ultimately win power. But you could not say that the majority of voters directly voted for him at the last election.
It certainly looks like alot less are going to vote for him now for our unconditional support in invading Iraq. The disaster that Iraq has proven to be wasn't so evident in 2004 at the last election, at least to the general public.
Its not like that many Australian companies have even had sweetheart deals with Iraq - so its hard to see even the commercial gain for the venture for Australia.
Whilst I think that most Australians (myself included) would support the US in any war or real threat to US soil, few of us really want to go invading other countries without good reason. One of the major holidays in Australia, ANZAC day, reminds us yearly of the horrors of unnecessary wars. The words we repeat at the end of the dawn service is "Lest we forget". It reflects the Australian ethos that war is a bad thing, and we should remember this. Sadly, it would seem that John Howard did forget the horror of war when he chose to support the invasion of Iraq.
Anyway, for the majority of Australians who didn't actually vote for John Howard at the last election, I think we are entitled to grumble a little.
But I certainly agree with you that we have no right to blame the US for our mistakes. Including John Howard. That was all our own doing.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Actually, the crime committed was under the Council of Europe Cybercrime treaty, and one of the provisions is extradition. It merely makes sense in our networked world to have treaties that allow for extrajudicial criminal invesitgations. Otherwise, criminals would sit in a country with the most lax laws, and conduct obviously criminal activities against other nations, whose hands would be tied. With regard to hate speech, that was placed in a seperate treaty so that the US would not have to sign it, or more accurately, so the US could sign the other provisions of the treaty. As hate crime legislation is against the 1st Amendment in the US, even if the Senate ratified the treaty, the Supreme Court would hold it invalid. So, that is why there is a difference.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
Personally, I moderate on the merits of the post. I have stopped correcting spelling/grammar errors by followup comment as I've discovered that English is not the first language of many posters, although their point of view is as valid as mine. Please don't be misled by the fraction of slashdotters who are loud-mouthed assholes and swagger around like ultra-patriots. Since this is supposedly a free nation, all of us must suffer the inelegant employment of that freedom by some in order to justify our own. I repeat, we are not a monolithic nation, but I concede it could look that way from afar...
"The guy has been accused of violating copyright law by certain people in the US. He has not been convicted. The question of his guilt has not even been examined by a court. He has been extradited not for violating copyright law, but for being accused of violating copyright law."
FTFA: "...Griffiths, 44, is in a Virginia cell, facing up to 10 years in an American prison after a guilty plea late last month...."
This means the "accused" admitted he was wrong. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, his "question of guilt" has been examined by a court. Actually, there is not even a question of guilt, but an admission of guilt. He convicted himself in court. No need for the whole process. How many more times do I have to say he's guilty as examined by a court. A judge even has the chance to look at the facts of the case with a guilty plea and say "there's no case here, dismissed." But, that is not happening here because what occurred is legal in the US, Australia, and international law.
Better check your facts next time. Oh, wait; this is Slashdot.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Not really. From outside the US I see a bunch of right-wingers arguing with another bunch of right-wingers about how far to the right the most acceptable form of government is. Now if you actually had a party that was on the left, then you might be able to call the voting public polarized, but until then...
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
There's a difference between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. Under the Roman Republic, subject peoples were often ruthlessly exploited by Roman businessmen but the establishment of the Principate under Augustus brought the worst excesses to an end. The Roman Empire was a very benign superpower. The Romans (until the rise of Christianity) was a pluralist society that embraced all the cultures within its borders. Minorities (except Christians) were allowed to practice their beliefs without persecution as long as no-one was injured in the process. In most cases conquered nations were allowed to keep their own form of government, customs and legal systems with the understanding that Roman Law superceded local laws. As the oft quoted lines from Life of Brian go "Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" - Brought peace. Wherever the US goes, they rarely bring peace with them. They do bring, however, exploitative and ruthless businessmen.
Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
This is no different than drug lords in Columbia being wanted by US authorities.
Interesting how you equate something like breaking copyright to a much more heinous crime like illegal drug manufacturing. Dude, seriously, it's goddamn software.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni